Election issues in Iraq

[Cowperson]

FYI and nothing else, this dry, informational piece in the Chicago Sun-Times gives some details of coalitions forming and their platforms for the coming elections in Iraq.

Also, a prominent Sunni party which said it would boycott quietly submitted a full list of candidates.

An excerpt:

Details began to emerge Friday about the composition of a 228-candidate list presented by Iraq's mainstream #####e groups in the run-up to next month's parliamentary elections, part of their bid to take a leading role in post-occupation Iraq.

As expected, representatives of Iraq's dominant Iran-linked #####e party topped the list of the United Iraqi Alliance.

Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution, was number one, said one of his aides. But there were also representatives of small northern Sunni tribes, Turkomen movements and others in an apparent attempt to attract wide support.

Members of participating groups said the coalition's platform would include a call for working toward the withdrawal of U.S. and other foreign troops in Iraq.

"There must be a timetable for this," said Hussein al-Mousawi, an official of the #####e Political Council, an umbrella group that has some parties represented in the alliance.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-iraq10.html

EDIT: A lengthy article in the New York Times examining the large debate ongoing in the Muslim world over the interpretation of Islam, a debate being sparked by the incredible depth of violence seen in Iraq in the name of their religion.

A very interesting read if you have the time - an excerpt:

The long-simmering internal debate over political violence in Islamic cultures is swelling, with seminars like that one and a raft of newspaper columns breaking previous taboos by suggesting that the problem lies in the way Islam is being interpreted. On Saturday in Morocco, a major conference, attended by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, will focus on increasing democracy and liberal principles in the Muslim world.

On one side of the discussion sit mostly secular intellectuals horrified by the gore joined by those ordinary Muslims dismayed by the ever more bloody image of Islam around the world. They are determined to find a way to wrestle the faith back from extremists. Basically the liberals seek to dilute what they criticize as the clerical monopoly on disseminating interpretations of the sacred texts.

Arrayed against them are powerful religious institutions like Al Azhar University, prominent clerics and a whole different class of scholars who argue that Islam is under assault by the West. Fighting back with any means possible is the sole defense available to a weaker victim, they say.

The debate, which can be heard in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia, is driven primarily by carnage in Iraq. The hellish stream of images of American soldiers attacking mosques and other targets are juxtaposed with those of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi beheading civilian victims on his home videos as a Koranic verse including the line "Smite at their necks" scrolls underneath.

When the mayhem in Iraq slows, events like the slaying in September of more than 300 people at a Russian school - half of them children - or some other attack in the Netherlands, Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia or Spain labeled jihad by its perpetrators serves to fuel discussions on satellite television, in newspapers and around the dinner tables of ordinary Muslims.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/10/internat...html?oref=login

Cowperson

[Looger]

it pains me to say this but...

the vast majority of the extremism that exists in islam today is the natural byproduct of numerous ugly betrayals by the western overlords (us...) in the last 50 years.

the circumstances surrounding the creation of israel, the tremendous betrayal at the end of WWI, the overthrow of governments that are liberal minded and independence-minded - and oil rights minded.

the overthrow of mossadeq in iran in 1959 is THE watershed event for western relations with the islamic world of today.

its shakedowns are quite apparent in iraq today, where #####e extremism threatens to take hold over a young democratic iraq.

and you know what?

a lot of the things these guys say is dead-on, which is why we are where we are.

if north americans by and large accepted this simple fact the world would be a much better place.

europe has figured it out.

why don't we?

[Cowperson]

Actually, the inference you stated WAS the common opinion but it appears that is being challenged internally, the point of the article, hence thte growing debate:

Abdul Rahman al-Rashed, director of the Dubai-based satellite network Al Arabiya and a well-known Saudi journalist, created a ruckus this fall with a newspaper column saying Muslims must confront the fact that most terrorist acts are perpetrated by Muslims.

"The danger specifically comes from the ideas and the preaching of violence in the name of religion," he said, adding, "I am more convinced there is a problem with the culture, the modern culture of radicalism, which people have to admit. Without recognizing that as fact number one, that statistically speaking most terrorists are Muslims, we won't be able to solve it."

Lots of places were exploited by Europeans and Americans yet most terrorists are Muslims.

And

"It is like this now because for centuries Muslims have been told that Islam was spread by the sword, that all Arab countries and even Spain were captured by the sword and we are proud of that," he said. "In the minds of ordinary people, people on the street, the religion of Islam is the religion of the sword. This is the culture, and we have to change it."

The conference in question in Morroco opened today. Here's how it was advanced by Al-Jazeera, further reflecting introspection.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3FC...C18F7C2821F.htm

Cowperson

[Looger]

i remember that ruckus.

i just wish common opinion over here realized that there are legitimate beefs, and not this 'they hate us because we are free' BS.

arabs in general are passionate people, but when it comes to national agendas and pan-arabic unity centuries-old blood feauds always get in the way.

we've done our part to divide them as a nation, but quite honestly i bet it'd be pretty divided without our help.

but our help remains and will always be a sticking point.

that being said western support for regimes like saudi arabia and the taliban paint us in a wierd brush among the moderate secular arabs.

it seems to me that this 'clash of civilzations' idea is near total nonsense when looked at with bodycounts and military expenditure in mind. more like clash of forward thinkers and backward thinkers, with us solidly on the side of the backward-thinkers.